Chapter VIII.

Objections against the former proposal answered.

By what was
said in the last chapter, it clearly appeareth that the oblation and
intercession of Christ are of equal compass and extent in respect of their
objects, or the persons for whom he once offered himself and doth
continually intercede, and so are to be looked on as one joint
means for the attaining of a certain proposed end; which
what it is comes next to be considered. But because I find some objections
laid by some against the former truth, I must remove them before I proceed;
which I shall do “as a man removeth dung until it be all gone.”

The sum of one of our former arguments was, — That to
sacrifice and intercede belong both to the same person, as high priest;
which name none can answer, neither hath any performed that office, until
both by him be accomplished. Wherefore, our Saviour being the most
absolute, and, indeed, the only true high priest, in whom were really all
those perfections which in others received a weak typical representation,
doth perform both these in the behalf of them for whose sakes he was
such.

I. An argument not unlike to this I find by some to be
undertaken to be answered, being in these words proposed, “The ransom and
mediation of Christ is no larger than his office of priest, prophet, and
king; but these offices pertain to his church and chosen: therefore his
ransom pertains to them only.”

The intention and meaning of the argument is the same with
what we proposed, — namely, that Christ offered nothing for them for whom
he is no priest, and he is a priest only for them for whom he doth also
intercede. If afterward I shall have occasion to make use of this
argument, I shall, by the Lord’s assistance, give more weight and strength
to it than it seems to have in their proposal, whose interest it is to
present it as slightly as possible, that they may seem fairly to have
waived it. But the evasion, such as it is, let us look upon.

“This,” saith the answerer, “is a sober objection;” which
friendly term I imagined at first he had given for this reason, because he
found it kind and easy to be satisfied. But reading the answer and finding
188that, so wide from yielding any colour or appearance of what
was pretended, it only served him to vent some new, weak, false
conceptions, I imagined that it must be some other kindness that caused him
to give this “objection,” as he calls it, so much milder an entertainment
than those others, which equally gall him, which hear nothing but, “This is
horrid, that blasphemy, that detestable, abominable, and false,” as being,
indeed, by those of his persuasion neither to be endured nor avoided. And
at length I conceived that the reason of it was intimated in the first
words of his pretended answer; which are, that “this objection doth not
deny the death of Christ for all men, but only his ransom and mediation for
all men.” Now, truly, if it be so, I am not of his judgment, but so far
from thinking it a “sober objection,” that I cannot be persuaded that any
man in his right wits would once propose it. That Christ should die for
all, and yet not be a ransom for all, himself affirming that he came to
“give his life a ransom for
many,” Matt. xx.
28, is to me a plain contradiction. The death of Christ, in the
first most general notion and apprehension thereof, is a ransom.
Nay, do not this answerer and those who are of the same persuasion with him
make the ransom of as large extent as any thing in, or about, or following
the death of Christ? Or have they yet some farther distinction to make, or
rather division about the ends of the death of Christ? as we have had
already: “For some he not only paid a ransom, but also intercedeth for
them; which be doth not for all for whom he paid a ransom.” Will they now
go a step backward, and say that for some he not only died, but also paid a
ransom for them; which he did not for all for whom he died? Who, then,
were those that he thus died for? They must be some beyond all and every
man; for, as they contend, for them he paid a ransom. But let us see what
he says farther; in so easy a cause as this it is a shame to take
advantages.

“The answer to this objection,” saith be, “is easy and
plain in the Scripture, for the mediation of Christ is both more general
and more special; — more general, as he is the ‘one mediator between God and men,’ 1 Tim. ii.
5; and more special, as he is ‘the
mediator of the new testament, that they which are called might receive the
promise of eternal inheritance,’ Heb. ix.
15. According to that it is said, ‘He is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that
believe,’ 1 Tim. iv.
10. So in all the offices of Christ, the priest, the prophet,
the king, there is that which is more general, and that which is more
special and peculiar.”

And this is that which he calls a clear and plain answer
from the Scripture, leaving the application of it unto the argument to
other men’s conjecture; which, as far as I can conceive, must be thus:— It
is true Christ paid a ransom for none but those for whom he is a mediator
and priest; but Christ is to be considered two ways: 189First, As
a general mediator and priest for all; secondly, As a special mediator and
priest for some. Now, he pays the ransom as a general mediator. This I
conceive may be some part of his meaning; for in itself the whole is in
expression so barbarous and remote from common sense, — in substance such a
wild, unchristian madness, as contempt would far better suit it than a
reply. The truth is, for sense and expression in men who, from their
manual trades, leap into the office of preaching and employment of writing,
I know no reason why we should expect. Only, it can never enough be
lamented that wildness, in such tattered rags, should find entertainment,
whilst sober truth is shut out of doors; for what, I pray you, is the
meaning of this distinction, “Christ is either a general mediator between
God and man, or a special mediator of the new testament?” Was it ever
heard before that Christ was any way a mediator but as he is so of the new
testament? A mediator is not of one; all mediation respects an agreement
of several parties; and every mediator is the mediator of a covenant. Now,
if Christ be a mediator more generally than as he is so of the new
covenant, of what covenant, I beseech you, was that? Of the covenant of
works? Would not such an assertion overthrow the whole gospel? Would it
not be derogatory to the honour of Jesus Christ that he should be the
mediator of a cancelled covenant? Is it not contrary to Scripture,
affirming him a “surety” (not of
the first, but) “of a better
testament?” Heb. vii. 22.
Are not such bold assertors fitter to be catechised than to preach? But
we must not let it pass thus. The man harps upon something that he hath
heard from some Arminian doctor, though he hath had the ill-hap so poorly
to make out his conceptions. Wherefore, being in some measure acquainted
with their occasions, which they colour with those texts of Scripture which
are here produced, I shall briefly remove the poor shift, that so our
former argument may stand unshaken.

The poverty of the answer, as before expressed, hath been
sufficiently already declared. The fruits of Christ’s mediation have been
distinguished by some into those that are more general and those which are
more peculiar, which, in some sense, may be tolerable; but that the offices
of Christ should be said to be either general or peculiar, and himself in
relation to them so considered, is a gross, unshaped fancy. I answer,
then, to the thing intended, that we deny any such general mediation, or
function of office in general, in Christ, as should extend itself beyond
his church or chosen. It was his “church” which he “redeemed with his own blood,” Acts xx.
28; his “church” that “he loved and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse
it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to
himself a glorious church,” Eph. v.
25–27. They were his “sheep” he “laid down his life for,” John x.
15; and “appeareth in 190heaven for us,” Heb. ix. 24. Not one word of
mediating for any other in the Scripture. Look upon his
incarnation. It was “because the children were partakers of flesh and
blood,” chap. ii. 14;
not because all the world were so. Look upon his oblation:
“For their
sakes,” saith he, (“those whom thou hast given me,”) “do I sanctify myself,” John xvii. 19; that is, to be an
oblation, which was the work he had then in hand. Look upon his
resurrection: “He
was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for
our justification,” Rom. iv. 25.
Look upon his ascension: “I
go,” saith he, “to
my Father and your Father, and that to prepare a place for
you,” John xiv.
2. Look upon his perpetuated intercession. Is it not
to “save to the uttermost
them that come unto God by him?” Heb. vii. 25. Not one word of this
general mediation for all. Nay, if you will hear himself, he denies in
plain terms to mediate for all: “I
pray not,” saith he, “for the world, but for them which then hast given me,”
John xvii. 9.

But let us see what is brought to confirm this distinction.
1 Tim. ii. 5 is quoted for the
maintenance thereof: “For
there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus.” What then, I pray? what will be concluded hence?
Cannot Christ be a mediator between God and men, but he must be a mediator
for all men? Are not the elect men? do not the children partake of flesh
and blood? doth not his church consist of men? What reason is there to
assert, out of an indefinite proposition, a universal conclusion? Because
Christ was a mediator for men (which were true had he been so only for his
apostles), shall we conclude therefore he was so for all men? “Apage nugas!”

But let us see another proof, which haply may give more
strength to the uncouth distinction we oppose, and that is 1 Tim. iv. 10, “Who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that
believe.” Had it been, “Who is the Mediator of all
men, specially of them that believe,” it had been more likely. But the
consciences, or at least the foreheads of these men! Is there any word
here spoken of Christ as mediator? Is it not the “living God” in whom we
trust that is the Saviour here mentioned, as the words going before in the
same verse are? And is Christ called so in respect of his mediation? That
God the Father is often called Saviour I showed before, and that he is here
intended, as is agreed upon by all sound interpreters, so also it is clear
from the matter in hand, which is the protecting providence of God, general
towards all, special and peculiar towards his church. Thus he is said to
“save man and
beast,” Ps. xxxvi. 6,
Ἀνθρώπους καὶ κτήνη σώσεις κύριε,
rendering the Hebrew, תּוֹשִׁיעַ by
σώσεις, “Thou shalt save or preserve.”
It is God, then, that is here called the “Saviour of all,” by deliverance and protection in danger,
of which the apostle treats, and that by his providence, which is peculiar
towards believers; and what this makes for a universal mediation I know
not.

191Now, the very context in this place will not
admit of any other interpretation; for the words render a reason why,
notwithstanding all the injury and reproaches wherewith the people of God
are continually assaulted, yet they should cheerfully go forward to run
with joy the race that is set before them; even because as God preserveth
all (for “in him we live, and move,
and have our being,” Acts xvii.
28; Ps. cxlv.
14–16), so that he will not suffer any to be injured and
unrevenged, Gen. ix. 5, so is he especially the
preserver of them that do believe; for they are as the apple of his eye,
Zech. ii. 8; Deut.
xxxii. 10. So that if he should suffer them to be pressed for a
season, yet let them not let go their hope and confidence, nor be weary of
well-doing, but still rest on and trust in him. This encouragement being
that which the apostle was to lay down, what motive would it be hereunto to
tell believers that God would have those saved who neither do nor ever will
or shall believe? — that I say nothing how strange it seems that Christ
should be the Saviour of them who are never saved, to whom he never gives
grace to believe, for whom be denies to intercede, John xvii.
9; which yet is no small part of his mediation whereby he saves
sinners. Neither the subject, then, nor the predicate proposition,
“He is the Saviour of all
men,” is rightly apprehended by them who would wrest it to the
maintenance of universal redemption. For the subject, “He,” it is
God the Father, and not Christ the mediator; and for the predicate, it is a
providential preservation, and not a purchased salvation that is
intimated; — that is, the providence of God protecting and governing all,
but watching in an especial manner for the good of them that are his, that
they be not always unjustly and cruelly traduced and reviled, with other
pressures, that the apostle here rests upon; as also he shows that it was
his course to do, 2 Cor. i. 9,
10: “But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not
trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: who delivered us
from so great a death, and doth deliver us: in whom we trust that he will
yet deliver us;” for “he is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that
believe.” If any shall conceive that these words (“Because we hope in the
living God, who is,” etc.) do not render an account of the
ground of Paul’s confidence in going through with his labours and
afflictions, but rather are an expression of the head and sum of that
doctrine for which he was so turmoiled and afflicted, I will not much
oppose it; for then, also, it includes nothing but an assertion of the true
God and dependence on him, in opposition to all the idols of the Gentiles,
and other vain conceits whereby they exalted themselves into the throne of
the Most High. But that Christ should be said to be a Saviour of, — 1.
Those who are never saved from their sins, as he saves his people,
Matt. i. 21; 2. Of those who never
hear one word of saving or a Saviour; 3. That he should be a Saviour in 192a twofold sense, — (1.) For all, (2.) For believers; 4. That to
believe is the condition whereby Christ becomes a Saviour in an especial
manner unto any, and that condition not procured nor purchased by him; —
that this, I say, is the sense of this place, “credat Judæus Apella.” To me nothing is more
certain than that to whom Christ is in any sense a Saviour in the work of
redemption, he saves them to the uttermost from all their sins of
infidelity and disobedience, with the saving of grace here and glory
hereafter.

II. Farther attempts, also, there are to give strength to
this evasion, and so to invalidate our former argument, which I must also
remove.

“Christ,” say they,2323More’s Universality of
Grace. “in some sort intercedeth and putteth in for
transgressors, even the sons of men, yet in and of the world, that the
Spirit may so still unite and bless those that believe on him, and so go
forth in their confessions and conversations, and in the ministration of
the gospel by his servants, that those among whom they dwell and converse
might be convinced and brought to believe the report of the gospel,
Isa. liii. 12; as once, Luke xxiii. 34; as himself left a
pattern to us, John
xxi. 21–23; that so the men of the world might be convinced, and
the convinced allured to Christ and to God in him, Matt. v. 14–16; yea, so as that he
doth in some measure enlighten every man that cometh into the world,
John i. 9. But in a more special
manner doth he intercede,” etc.

Here is a twofold intercession of Christ as mediator:— 1.
For all sinners, that they may believe (for that is it which is intended by
the many cloudy expressions wherein it is involved). 2. For believers,
that they may be saved. It is the first member of the distinction which we
oppose; and therefore must insist a little upon it.

First, Our author saith, “It is an interceding in some
sort.” I ask, in what sort? Is it directly, or indirectly? Is it by
virtue of his blood shed for them, or otherwise? Is it with an intention
and desire to obtain for them the good things interceded for, or with
purpose that they shall go without them? Is it for all and every man, or
only for those who live in the outward pale of the church? Is faith the
thing required for them, or something else? Is that desired absolutely, or
upon some condition? All which queries must be clearly answered before
this general intercession can be made intelligible.

First, Whether it be directly or indirectly, and by
consequence only, that this intercession after a sort is used, for that
thing interceded for is represented not as the immediate issue or aim of
the prayer of Christ, but as a reflex arising from a blessing obtained by
others; for the prayer set down is that God would so bless believers, that
those amongst whom they dwell may believe the report of the gospel. It is
believers that are the direct object of this intercession, and others are
only glanced at through them. The good also so desired 193for
them is considered either as an accident that may come to pass, or follow
the flourishing of believers, κατὰ
συμβεβηκός, or as an end intended to be accomplished by it. If the
first, then their good is no more intended than their evil. If the latter,
why is it not effected? why is not the intention of our Saviour
accomplished? Is it for want of wisdom to choose suitable and
proportionable means to the end proposed? or is it for want of power to
effect what he intendeth?

Secondly, Is it by virtue of his blood shed for them, or
otherwise? — If it be, then Christ intercedeth for them that they may enjoy
those things which for them by his oblation he did procure; for this it is
to make his death and blood-shedding to be the foundation of his
intercession; then it follows that Christ by his death procured faith for
all, because he intercedeth that all may believe, grounding that
intercession upon the merit of his death. But, first, this is more than
the assertors of universal redemption will sustain; among all the ends of
the death of Christ by them assigned, the effectual and infallible
bestowing of faith on those for whom he died is none: secondly, if by his
death he hath purchased it for all, and by intercession entreateth for it,
why is it not actually bestowed on them? is not a concurrence of both these
sufficient for the making out of that one spiritual blessing? — But,
secondly, If it be not founded on his death and blood-shedding, then we
desire that they would describe unto us this intercession of Christ,
differing from his appearing for us in heaven sprinkled with his own
blood.

Thirdly, Doth he intercede for them that they should
believe, with an intention or desire that they should do so, or no? If
not, it is but a mock intercession, and an entreaty for that which he would
not have granted. If so, why is it not accomplished? why do not all
believe? Yea, if he died for all, and prayed for all, that they might
believe, why are not all saved? for Christ is always heard of his Father,
John xi. 42.

Fourthly, Is it for all and every one in the world that
Christ makes this intercession, or only for those who live within the pale
of the church? If only for these latter, then this doth not prove a
general intercession for all, but only one more large than that for
believers; for if he leaves out any one in the world, the present
hypothesis falls to the ground. If for all, how can it consist in that
petition, “that the Spirit would so lead, guide, and bless
believers, and so go forth in the ministration of the gospel by his
servants, that others (that is, all and every one in the world) may be
convinced and brought to believe?” How, I say, can this be spoken with any
reference to those millions of souls that never see a believer, that hear
no report of the gospel?

Fifthly, If his intercession be for faith, then either
Christ intercedeth for it absolutely, that they may certainly have
it, or upon 194condition, and that either on the part of
God or man. — If absolutely, then all do actually believe; or that
is not true, the Father always hears him, John xi.
42. If upon condition on the part of God, it can be
nothing but this, if he will or please. Now, the adding of this
condition may denote in our Saviour two things:— 1. A nescience of what is
his Father’s will in the thing interceded for: which, first, cannot stand
with the unity of his person as now in glory; and, secondly, cannot be,
because he hath the assurance of a promise to be heard in whatever he
asketh, Ps. ii. 8. Or, 2. An advancement of his
Father’s will, by submission to that as the prime cause of the good to be
bestowed; which may well stand with absolute intercession, by virtue
whereof all must believe. — Secondly, Is it a condition on the part of
those for whom he doth intercede? Now, I beseech you, what condition
is that? where in the Scripture assigned? where is it said that Christ doth
intercede for men that they may have faith if they do such and such things?
Nay, what condition can rationally be assigned of this desire? “Some
often intimate that it is, if they suffer the Spirit to have his work upon
their hearts, and obey the grace of God.” Now, what is it to obey the
grace of God? Is it not to believe? Therefore, it seems that Christ
intercedeth for them that they may believe, upon condition that they do
believe. Others, more cautiously, assert the good using of the means of
grace that they do enjoy to be the condition upon which the benefit of this
intercession doth depend. But again, — 1. What is the good using of the
means of grace but submitting to them, that is, believing? and so we are as
before. 2. All have not the means of grace, to use well or ill. 3. Christ
prays that they may use the means of grace well, or he doth not. If not,
then how can he pray that they may believe, seeing to use well the means of
grace, by yielding obedience unto them, is indeed to believe? If he do,
then he doth it absolutely, or upon condition, and so the argument is
renewed again as in the entrance. Many more reasons might be easily
produced to show the madness of this assertion, but those may suffice.
Only we must look upon the proof and confirmations of it.

First, then, the words of the prophet Isaiah, chap. liii. 12, “He made intercession for
the transgressors,” are insisted on. — Ans. The
transgressors here, for whom our Saviour is said to make
intercession, are either all the transgressors for whom he suffered, as is
most likely from the description we have of them, verse
6, or the transgressors only by whom he suffered, that
acted in his sufferings, as some suppose. If the first, then this place
proves that Christ intercedes for all those for whom be suffered; which
differs not from that which we contend for. If the latter, then we may
consider it as accomplished. How he then did it, so it is here foretold
that he should, which is the next place urged, namely, —

195Luke xxiii.
34, “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they
do.” — Ans. The conclusion which from these words is
inferred being, “Therefore there is a general intercession for all, that
they may believe,” I might well leave the whole argument to the silent
judgment of men, without any farther opening and discovery of its
invalidity and weakness; but because the ablest of that side have usually
insisted much on this place for a general successless intercession, I will
a little consider the inference its dependence on these words of the
gospel, and search whether it have any appearance of strength in it. To
which end we must observe, —

Secondly, That this prayer is not for all men, but only for
that handful of the Jews by whom be was crucified. Now, from a prayer for
them to infer a prayer for all and every man that ever were, are, or shall
be, is a wild deduction.

It doth not appear that he prayed for all his crucifers
neither, but only for those who did it out of ignorance, as appears by the
reason annexed to his supplication: “For they know not what they do.” And though, Acts iii. 17, it is said that the
rulers also did it ignorantly, yet that all of them did so is not apparent;
that some did is certain from that place; and so it is that some of them
were converted, as afterward. Indefinite propositions must not in such
things be made universal. Now, doth it follow that because Christ prayed
for the pardon of their sins who crucified him out of ignorance, as some of
them did, that therefore he intercedeth for all that they may believe;
crucifers who never once heard of his crucifying?

Thirdly, Christ in those words doth not so much as pray for
those men that they might believe, but only that that sin of them in
crucifying of him might be forgiven, not laid to their charge. Hence to
conclude, therefore he intercedeth for all men that they may believe, even
because he prayed that the sin of crucifying himself might be forgiven them
that did it, is a strange inference.

Fourthly, There is another evident limitation in the
business; for among his crucifiers he prays only for them that were present
at his death, amongst whom, doubtless, many came more out of curiosity, to
see and observe, as is usual in such cases, than out of malice and despite.
So that whereas some urge that notwithstanding this prayer, yet the chief
of the priests continued in their unbelief, it is not to the purpose, for
it cannot be proved that they were present at his crucifying.

Fifthly, It cannot be affirmed with any probability that
our Saviour should pray for all and every one of them, supposing some of
them to be finally impenitent: for he himself knew full well
“what was in
man,” John ii. 25; yea, he “knew from the beginning who they were that believed
not,” chap. vi. 64. Now, it is contrary to
the rule which we have, 1 John v.
16, “There is a sin unto death,” etc., to 196pray for
them whom we know to be finally impenitent, and to sin unto death.

Sixthly, It seems to me that this supplication was
effectual and successful, that the Son was heard in this request also,
faith and forgiveness being granted to them for whom he prayed; so that
this makes nothing for a general, ineffectual intercession, it being both
special and effectual: for, Acts iii., of
them whom Peter tells, that they “denied the Holy One, and desired a murderer,” verse 14, “and killed the Prince of Life,” verse 15, — of these, I say, five
thousand believed: chap. iv. 4, “Many of them which heard the word believed, and the number of them was
about five thousand.” And if any others were among them whom
our Saviour prayed for, they might be converted afterward. Neither were
the rulers without the compass of the fruits of this prayer; for
“a great company of the priests
were obedient to the faith,” chap. vi. 7.
So that nothing can possibly be hence inferred for the purpose
intended.

Seventhly, We may, nay we must, grant a twofold praying in
our Saviour; — one, by virtue of his office as he was mediator; the other,
in answer of his duty, as he was subject to the law. It is true, he who
was mediator was made subject to the law; but yet those things which be did
in obedience to the law as a private person were not acts of mediation, nor
works of him as mediator, though of him who was mediator. Now, as he, was
subject to the law, our Saviour was bound to forgive offences and wrongs
done unto him, and to pray for his enemies; as also he had taught us to do,
whereof in this he gave us an example: Matt. v.
44, “I say unto you, Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray
for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” which
doubtless he inferreth from that law, Lev. xix.
18, “Thou shalt not avenge, nor
bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself,” — quite contrary to the wicked gloss put
upon it by the Pharisees. And in this sense our Saviour here, as a private
person, to whom revenge was forbidden, pardon enjoined, prayer commanded,
prays for his very enemies and crucifers; which doth not at all concern his
interceding for us as mediator, wherein he was always heard, and so is
nothing to the purpose in hand.

Again, John
xvii. 21–23 is urged to confirm this general intercession, which
we have exploded; our Saviour praying that, by the unity, concord, and
flourishing of his servants, the world might believe and know that God had
sent him. From which words, though some make a seeming flourish, yet the
thing pretended is no way confirmed; for, —

First, If Christ really intended and desired that the whole
world, or all men in the world, should believe, he would also, no doubt,
have 197prayed for more effectual means of grace to be granted
unto them than only a beholding of the blessed condition of his (which yet
is granted only to a small part of the world); at least for the preaching
of the word to them all, that by it, as the only ordinary way, they might
come to the knowledge of him. But this we do not find that ever he prayed
for, or that God hath granted it; nay, he blessed his Father that so it was
not, because so it seemed good in his sight, Matt. xi. 25, 26.

Secondly, Such a gloss or interpretation must not be put
upon the place as should run cross to the express words of our Saviour,
verse 9, “I pray not for the world;” for if he here prayed that
the world should have true, holy, saving faith, he prayed for as great a
blessing and privilege for the world as any he procured or interceded for
his own. Wherefore, —

Thirdly, Say some, the world is here taken for the world of
the elect, the world to be saved, — God’s people throughout the world.
Certain it is that the world is not here taken properly pro mundo continente, for the world
containing, but figuratively pro mundo contento, for the world
contained, or men in the world. Neither can it be made appear
that it must be taken universally, for all the men in the world, as seldom
it is in the Scripture, which afterward we shall make appear; but it may be
understood indefinitely, for men in the world, few or more, as the elect
are in their several generations. But this exposition, though it hath
great authors, I cannot absolutely adhere unto, because through this whole
chapter the world is taken either for the world of reprobates, opposed to
them that are given to Christ by his Father, or for the world of
unbelievers (the same men under another notion), opposed to them who are
committed to his Father by Christ. Wherefore I answer, —

Fourthly, That by believing, verse 21, and knowing,
verse 23, is not meant believing in
a strict sense, or a saving comprehension and receiving of Jesus Christ,
and so becoming the sons of God, — which neither ever was, nor ever will
be, fulfilled in every man in the world, nor was ever prayed for, — but a
conviction and acknowledgment that the Lord Christ is not, what before they
had taken him to be, a seducer and a false prophet, but indeed what he
said, one that came out from God, able to protect and do good for and to
his own: which kind of conviction and acknowledgment that it is often
termed believing in the Scripture is more evident than that it should need
to be proved; and that this is here meant the evidence of the thing is such
as that it is consented unto by expositors of all sorts. Now, this is not
for any good of the world, but for the vindication of his people and the
exaltation of his own glory; and so proves not at all the thing in
question. But of this word “world” afterward.

The following place of Matthew,
chap. v. 15, 16 (containing some 198instructions given
by our Saviour to his apostles, so to improve the knowledge and light which
of him they had, and were farther to receive, in the preaching of the word
and holiness of life, that they might be a means to draw men to glorify
God) is certainly brought in to make up a show of a number, as very many
other places are, the author not once considering what is to be proved by
them, nor to what end they are used; and therefore without farther inquiry
may well be laid aside, as not it all belonging to the business in hand,
nor to be dragged within many leagues of the conclusion, by all the
strength and skill of Mr More.

Neither is that other place of John, chap. i.
9, any thing more advisedly or seasonably urged, though
wretchedly glossed, and rendered, “In some measure enlightening every one
that comes into the world.” The Scripture says that “Christ is the true Light, that lighteth every man that
cometh into the world;” “In some measure,” says Mr More. Now, I beseech you, in what measure
is this? How far, unto what degree, in what measure, is illumination from
Christ? by whom or by what means, separated from him, independent of him,
is the rest made up? who supplies the defect of Christ? I know your aim is
to hug in your illumination by the light of nature, and I know not what
common helps that you dream of, towards them who are utterly deprived of
all gospel means of grace, and that not only for the knowledge of God as
Creator, but also of him as in Christ the Redeemer: but whether the calves
of your own setting up should be thus sacrificed unto, with wresting and
perverting the word of God, and undervaluing of the grace of Christ, you
will one day, I hope, be convinced. It sufficeth us that Christ is said to
enlighten every one, because he is the only true light, and every one that
is enlightened receiveth his light from him, who is the sum, the fountain
thereof. And so the general defence of this general, ineffectual
intercession is vanished. But yet farther, it is particularly replied,
concerning the priesthood of Christ, that, —

III. “As a priest in respect of one end, he offered
sacrifice, — that is, propitiation for all men, Heb. ii. 9, ix. 26;
John i. 29; 1 John ii.
2; — in respect of all the ends, propitiation, and sealing the
new testament, and testification to the truth; — and of the uttermost end
in all, for his called and chosen ones, Heb. ix. 14,
15; Matt. xxvi.
28.” (What follows after, being repeated out of another place,
hath been already answered.)

Ans. First, These words, as here placed, have no
tolerable sense in them, neither is it an easy thing to gather the mind of
the author out of them, so far are they from being a clear answer to the
argument, as was pretended. Words of Scripture, indeed, are used, but
wrested and corrupted, not only to the countenance of error, but to bear a
part in unreasonable expressions. For what, I pray, is the 199meaning of these words: “He offered sacrifice in respect of one
end, then of all ends, then of the uttermost end in all?” To inquire
backwards:— 1. What is this “uttermost end in all?” Is that “in all,” in
or among all the ends proposed and accomplished? or in all those for whom
he offered sacrifice? or is it the uttermost end and proposal of God and
Christ in his oblation? If this latter, that is the glory of God; now
there is no such thing once intimated in the places of Scripture quoted,
Heb. ix. 14, 15; Matt. xxvi. 28. 2. Do those places
hold out the uttermost end of the death of Christ (subordinate to God’s
glory)? Why, in one of them it is the obtaining of redemption, and in the
other the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins is expressed!
Now, all this you affirm to be the first end of the death of Christ, in the
first words used in this place calling it “propitiation,” — that is, an
atonement for the remission of sins; which remission of sins and redemption
are for the substance one and the same, both of them the immediate fruits
and first end of the death of Christ, as is apparent, Eph.
i. 7; Col. i. 14. So here you have
confounded the first and last end of the death of Christ, spoiling, indeed,
and casting down (as you may lawfully do, for it is your own), the whole
frame and building, whose foundation is this, that there be several and
diverse ends of the death of Christ towards several persons, so that some
of them belong unto all, and all of them only to some; which is the πρῶτον ψεῦδος of the whole book. 3.
Christ’s offering himself to put away sin, out of Heb. ix.
26, [you make to be] the place for the first end of the death of
Christ, and his shedding of his blood for the remission of sins, from
Matt. xxvi. 8, to be the last! Pray,
when you write next, give us the difference between these two. 4. You say,
“He offered sacrifice in respect of one end, — that is, propitiation for
all men.” Now, truly, if ye know the meaning of sacrifice and
propitiation, this will scarce appear sense unto you upon a second
view.

But, [secondly,] to leave your words and take your meaning,
it seems to be this, in respect of one end that Christ proposed to himself
in his sacrifice, he is a priest for all, be aimed to attain and accomplish
it for them; but in respect of other ends, he is so only for his chosen and
called. Now, truly, this is an easy kind of answering, which, if it will
pass for good and warrantable, you may easily disappoint all your
adversaries, even first by laying down their arguments, then saying your
own opinion is otherwise; for the very thing that is here imposed on us for
an answer is the τὸ κρινόμενον, the
chief matter in debate. We absolutely deny that the several ends of the
death of Christ, or the good things procured by his death, are thus
distributed as is here pretended. To prove our assertion, and to give a
reason of our denial of this dividing of these things in respect of their
objects, we produce the argument above proposed concerning 200the
priesthood of Christ; to which the answer given is a bare repetition of the
thing in question.

But you will say divers places of Scripture are quoted for
the confirmation of this answer. But these, as I told you before, are
brought forth for pomp and show, nothing at all being to be found in them
to the business in hand; such are Heb. ix. 26;
John i. 29. For what consequence is
there from an affirmation indefinite, that Christ bare or took away sin, to
this, that he is a priest for all and every one in respect of propitiation?
Besides, in that of John i. 9 there is a manifest allusion
to the paschal lamb, by which there was a typical, ceremonial purification
and cleansing of sin; which was proper only to the people of Israel, the
type of the elect of God, and not of all in the world, of all sorts,
reprobates and unbelievers also. Those other two places of Heb.
ii. 9, 1 John ii.
2, shall be considered apart, because they seem to have some
strength for the main of the cause; though apparently there is no word in
them that can be wrested to give the least colour to such an uncouth
distinction as that which we oppose. And thus our argument from the
equal objective extent of the oblation and intercession
of Jesus Christ is confirmed and vindicated, and, withal, the
means used by the blessed Trinity for the accomplishment of the
proposed end unfolded; which end, what it was, is next to be
considered.